re: Sherriff Joe Arpaio punished for effective policing...

So the fix is open borders with zero security? You think it will be cheaper when every doosh and his burkha wearing old lady can roll in drain money via service then roll out whenever they want? GFY on the idiot call little Rexy.

Yeah...I can see some poor people moving from the Middle East and leaving everything they have just so they can temporarily mooch off of the United States government and live at the poverty level.

quote:Do you believe it is reasonable for a suspect to wait 40 minutes while the police try to get a drug dog to the scene, then when the dog arrives on scene, it never alerts?

the dogs almost always alert, if the cops want to detain you

did you read the opinion? this isn't a 4A issue as you described

quote:To the extent that there was a legitimate, pretextual traffic basis for the original stop that does not involve race, it does not matter to Fourth Amendment analysis that the officer’s underlying decision to make the stop may have subjectively been based on considerations of race. See Whren, 517 U.S. at 813. Further, to the extent that other factors in combination, and excluding race as a consideration, were sufficient to justify reasonable suspicion for the stops, there is no Fourth Amendment violation. See United States v. Manzo-Jurado, 457 F.3d 928, 934?36 (9th Cir. 2006). As discussed below, however, such motivations do make a difference to the equal protection analysis

it doesn't seem to be a 4A issue

this is an EP issue, and the EP clause has been warped by judicial activism which the Tea Party rejects

again, there is no "gotcha" for small government/libertarian/tea party people

the other backbone involved preemption stuff that is ridiculous in reality, especially with the feds willingly ignoring their own laws. plus there are other state laws that don't deal with immigration that were used as a basis to investigate (noted in the opinion typically as the state human trafficking laws)

Because passengers present a risk to officer safety equal to the risk presented by the driver, an officer may ask for identification from passengers and run background checks on them as well. - United States v. Rice, 483 F.3d 1079 (10th Cir. 2007)

quote:Illegal Aliens actually make a net positive contribution to the treasury

Which is more than you can say of the poor that live here legally

Additionally we benefit from their labor anyway. I get that we should want people to come here through the proper immigration channels but I just don't think illegal immigrants are the big boogeyman that everyone points them out to be.

It's just people who worship the law and think that it must be enforced at all times.

Further, they're not taking because they are unable to any means tested welfare progs....and as you stated they are a net benefit to he economy.

And I see that this thread continued with many still defending the little thug from AZ...and his thuggery has gone well beyond the suspect immigration stops into intimidation of political opponents.

quote:In affirming this Court’s preliminary injunction, not only did the Ninth Circuit establish that the MCSO has no power to arrest such persons under such circumstances, it made clear that the MCSO has no power to detain them to investigate their immigration status. It is the existence of a suspected crime that gives a police officer the right to detain a person for the minimum time necessary to determine whether a crime is in progress. “[P]ossible criminality is key to any Terry investigatory stop or prolonged detention. . . . Absent suspicion that a ‘suspect is engaged in, or is about to engage in, criminal activity,’ law enforcement may not stop or detain an individual.” Ortega-Melendres II, 695 F.3d at 1000 (quoting United States v. Sandoval, 390 F.3d 1077, 1080 (9th Cir. 2004).88 In the absence, then, of any reasonable suspicion of a possible crime, there is no basis on which the MCSO can make an investigative detention—let alone an arrest— based only on the belief that someone is in the country without authorization. See also Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 326 (2009) (holding that an investigatory stop is justified at its inception only when an officer “reasonably suspects that the person apprehended is committing or has committed a criminal offense”).